PC CONSOLE graphical dispute has got to end.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#351 Edited by Snugenz (11888 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

there can be no understatement because i never mentioned the gap. obviously the gap will scale up pretty high once u reach a 780 level card. and lol @ u thinking crysis 3 would look better than the naughty dog example i just gave.

No i think a game made to the metal by Crytek will look better than a game made to the metal from Naughty Dog, like i said ND make better games, but Crytek make the best looking games.

Just noticed your edit, what the hell does Crysis 3 on the 360 have to do with our conversation are you all there in the head?.

#352 Posted by imprezawrx500 (19187 posts) -

@planbfreak4eva:

Once console owners will admit, consoles never look as good as pc these arguments will stop. Ok they look close for the first 6 months to a year but the pc always looks better and runs better on a good system and that will never change. Console cheap and great value but you don't buy them for the best eye candy, plus shooters are horrible with a controller.

#353 Posted by -Unreal- (24544 posts) -

Oh you want to bring up BF4 comparisons again? Okay, here you go.

BF4 on PS4 is like medium-high at 900p on PC. With worse than mid-range PC performance.

#354 Edited by edwardecl (2239 posts) -

Games will always look and play better on the right PC set up end of story, there is no dispute. You can't really compare a console to an infinite number of PC builds that get better every 6 - 12 months.

Now if anyone wants to play the bang for your buck argument and availability of games then that is valid. Some people don't like to be inconvenienced by operating systems hardware requirements and the million bullshit excuses why the game they have received is a bad port (although I'm starting to see some troubling things getting released on the new systems).

But you can compare two similar devices to one another...

#355 Edited by edwardecl (2239 posts) -

@Snugenz said:

@m3dude1 said:

there can be no understatement because i never mentioned the gap. obviously the gap will scale up pretty high once u reach a 780 level card. and lol @ u thinking crysis 3 would look better than the naughty dog example i just gave.

No i think a game made to the metal by Crytek will look better than a game made to the metal from Naughty Dog, like i said ND make better games, but Crytek make the best looking games.

Just noticed your edit, what the hell does Crysis 3 on the 360 have to do with our conversation are you all there in the head?.

I font think you understand what each company makes... they are very different in their approach. Crytek makes multi platform games that doesn't really bang the hardware all that much, I mean look a the games they release on PC you need the hardware to play the game. Naughty Dog makes the best game possible for the system it's on, there is no disputing it, they bang the hardware as much as possible and it would not work as a multi platform game as their development time would be insane to achieve it. You have to remember Naughty Dog not only make games, they design graphics libraries and code pieces of the firmware.

This coding the the metal thing has been an ongoing thing for the PS3 it's nothing new, so the question is is a Crytek game released on PS3 better than and Naughty Dog game graphically?

#356 Posted by Wasdie (49927 posts) -

Can I get a tl;dr on this entire thread?

#357 Posted by Shielder7 (5152 posts) -

@Snugenz said:

@Shielder7 said:

3. Resorting to baseless name calling is a sign you lost the argument.

4. Nope.

5. Um no You can't buy games for Steam on a disc, talk about moving the goal post when you're proven wrong. Also a lot of those games hermits like to brag about are Download only, not to mention physical games for PC often require an online activation as well as being harder to find and completely defeats the hermit argument of Cheaper games a PC physical copies are usually the same as their console counterparts.

Once again resorting to baseless name calling is a sign you lost the argument, At least you could do is admit you need internet access for Steam to at least be functional.

You're wrong, as usual, you complete an utter moron.

Translation:

#358 Posted by remiks00 (1877 posts) -
@gpuking said:

You guys are a bunch of paranoid lunatics lol, I simply screen dumped the Nvidia control panel System info tab and pasted it on to paint. It's just a gtx 760 guys, seriously WTF lol?

Also I was away because I'm obviously in a different timezone, I sleep and do other things you know.

ITz Fake!!!

Just kidding. =P (Yeah, I was bored at work for 3 minutes).

#359 Edited by Jankarcop (9538 posts) -

Currently

Star citizen Ultra> Crysis3 Ultra > Metro2 Ultra > KZ:SF

Most of every gen so far PC has had better gfx and performance. No magical event is going on this gen, same shit as usual.

#360 Posted by Snugenz (11888 posts) -

@Shielder7 said:

@Snugenz said:

@Shielder7 said:

3. Resorting to baseless name calling is a sign you lost the argument.

4. Nope.

5. Um no You can't buy games for Steam on a disc, talk about moving the goal post when you're proven wrong. Also a lot of those games hermits like to brag about are Download only, not to mention physical games for PC often require an online activation as well as being harder to find and completely defeats the hermit argument of Cheaper games a PC physical copies are usually the same as their console counterparts.

Once again resorting to baseless name calling is a sign you lost the argument, At least you could do is admit you need internet access for Steam to at least be functional.

You're wrong, as usual, you complete an utter moron.

Translation:

Indeed, it's what you've been doing in this entire thread.

#361 Posted by Jankarcop (9538 posts) -

@Shielder7 said:

Look everyone, he's crying again.


What as your point anyways? PC has better gfx, steam can be played offline and has a larger high scoring library than any console, and nearly all multiplats are better on PC.

Deal with those facts.

#362 Posted by pyro1245 (801 posts) -

Why do people keep thinking of a PC as they would a console; as a single entity that is either better or worse than something else. Truth is you can build a pc to be way better OR worse than any of the consoles available. Really it just comes down to the games: few exclusives for the consoles and a shitload for PC.

#363 Posted by Shielder7 (5152 posts) -

@Jankarcop said:

@Shielder7 said:

What as your point anyways? PC has better gfx, steam can be played offline and has a larger high scoring library than any console, and nearly all multiplats are better on PC.

Deal with those facts.

Steam requires Online don't even try to lie about this point. Even the games that don't have DRM you still need to have online to download them to begin with, and only a complete imbecilic babbling douche bag would try and argue otherwise.

Outside of RTS and crappy indies your larger high scoring library isn't so large or high anymore not to mention the PS 4 is cherry picking the best of the best indies making it a better system than Steam for the consumer so you don't even have that anymore.

Deal with the fact the last time the PC won a GOTY award or was even a serious contender was around the last time the Leafs one won the Cup lol. Don't worry The rate of probability states the PC is bound to win one "eventually"

#364 Posted by Jankarcop (9538 posts) -

@Shielder7 said:

@Jankarcop said:

@Shielder7 said:

What as your point anyways? PC has better gfx, steam can be played offline and has a larger high scoring library than any console, and nearly all multiplats are better on PC.

Deal with those facts.

Deal with the fact the last time the PC won a GOTY award

I'd rather have an exponentially larger AAA-AA library, the best version of multiplats, best gfx/performance, and superior online than 2 GOTY's.

#365 Posted by jhonMalcovich (4767 posts) -

I assume I speak for all SW

#366 Edited by melonfarmerz (1173 posts) -

@Shielder7: You're beyond retarded. No shit you have to be online to download games. That doesn't mean you have to be online to play them.

The PS4 has like 25 games atm. Don't even. You have nothing that remotely touches games like DayZ or Star Citizen (Dont tell me that it's not out yet, I've seen way too many of you guys braging about Order:1866) And don't even get me started on PC multiplats vs consoles. Oh and in five years time, your games will still be stuck at 30fps 900p, the same resolution as 2008, while PC starts achieving affordable 4K gaming

Wow your games won an award choosen by a group of raging console fanboys? GOOD FOR YOU. Too bad TLOU looks worse than Crisis 1 on PC from 2007.

#367 Posted by melonfarmerz (1173 posts) -

Just like to point out that this forum is a crime against webcoding. Doing anything on mobile is slow and impossible and the posting features are tailored for technologically illiterate people. why couldn't gamespot just use a BBCode forum?

Also, how is this thread still alive. Comparing console graphics to PC graphics is like comparing too models. One of which is uglier and dead. She looks worse now and will rot away over the next 7 years while the prettier one is constantly getting botox and what not, looking even better and constantly growing.

Lol that was a shit analogy

#368 Posted by xsrr11 (29 posts) -

Here you have direct proof. Here you have a " low level api ", just reduce the load on the CPU. At this zoo can not low level. Game made ​​on raw devkits and drivers for the weak xbone, runs only Nvidia GTX Titan Black.
In addition to true low level, the consoles still have optimization of iron needed for a gaming device engineering solutions , shared memory (no extra copy from memory to memory ) , api for audio processing on a dedicated audio device , ultra-high speed transmission of rendering commands from the CPU to the GPU.
Anch , warrant game from Quantic , Division , driveclab etc. show a true next-gen , although infamos , killzone
and other current so look almost perfect.

pc is wrong

http://static.gamespot.com/uploads/original/823/8237367/2481405-f5dx1201.jpg

#369 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (14111 posts) -

People play bf4?

#370 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (16154 posts) -

Someone mentioned Steam games can't be bought on a disc. Here in the US, you can buy most multiplatform PC Steam (along with Origin and Uplay) games retail on DVD discs.

The latest game I bought so far is Bioshock Infinite. I decided to buy the DD version because of the poor roads (due to snow). Any other time, I'd buy the disc version.

Some of my disc-based games (including Steam):

#371 Posted by MBirdy88 (8241 posts) -

@Jankarcop said:

Currently

Star citizen Ultra> Crysis3 Ultra > Metro2 Ultra > KZ:SF

Most of every gen so far PC has had better gfx and performance. No magical event is going on this gen, same shit as usual.

If star citizen ever releases.... still waiting on this nearly 4 month late dog fighting module...

#372 Posted by GarGx1 (2701 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@Jankarcop said:

Currently

Star citizen Ultra> Crysis3 Ultra > Metro2 Ultra > KZ:SF

Most of every gen so far PC has had better gfx and performance. No magical event is going on this gen, same shit as usual.

If star citizen ever releases.... still waiting on this nearly 4 month late dog fighting module...

The first phase alpha dog fighting module is late because of their trying to get it into a pvp playable state using their own net code (which will be used to run the persistent universe). They could have released in December/January using cryengine's built in net code but that was never going to be strong enough for the entire game. Also the original date was for PvE only, there would have been no multi-player support until April at the earliest.

That left Chris/C.I.G. with the decision to release the early build with limited PvE only and face a torrent of abuse from uninformed backers and trolls who think that an alpha test is the complete finished and fully polished final game. Or to do some more polish, implement a few new cool features and focus it on PvP, get their own net code ready'ish and then face a torrent of abuse from uniformed backers and trolls. Personally i think they made the right choice in delaying it.

#373 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151102 posts) -

@pyro1245 said:

Why do people keep thinking of a PC as they would a console; as a single entity that is either better or worse than something else. Truth is you can build a pc to be way better OR worse than any of the consoles available. Really it just comes down to the games: few exclusives for the consoles and a shitload for PC.

Exactly....which is why I don't get it's inclusion in SW. It really is a different beast.

#374 Edited by MBirdy88 (8241 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@pyro1245 said:

Why do people keep thinking of a PC as they would a console; as a single entity that is either better or worse than something else. Truth is you can build a pc to be way better OR worse than any of the consoles available. Really it just comes down to the games: few exclusives for the consoles and a shitload for PC.

Exactly....which is why I don't get it's inclusion in SW. It really is a different beast.

Its a gaming platform, thats all that matters. being custimsable is not a reason to exclude, rather an advantage or disadvantage based on income.

I say that.... I feel like buying a PS4 and funding its games, extra controller more expensive than upgrading my computer... by quite a margin.

Then paying £40-50 for games like the Lego Movie which are £20 or less on PC... (minor example I know)... Titanfall on X1 is £40-50 .... I got it on PC for £23.80.

the value/price advantage of consoles is nearly non-existant.

#375 Edited by LJS9502_basic (151102 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@pyro1245 said:

Why do people keep thinking of a PC as they would a console; as a single entity that is either better or worse than something else. Truth is you can build a pc to be way better OR worse than any of the consoles available. Really it just comes down to the games: few exclusives for the consoles and a shitload for PC.

Exactly....which is why I don't get it's inclusion in SW. It really is a different beast.

Its a gaming platform, thats all that matters. being custimsable is not a reason to exclude, rather an advantage or disadvantage based on income.

I say that.... I feel like buying a PS4 and funding its games, extra controller more expensive than upgrading my computer... by quite a margin.

Then paying £40-50 for games like the Lego Movie which are £20 or less on PC... (minor example I know)... Titanfall on X1 is £40-50 .... I got it on PC for £23.80.

the value/price advantage of consoles is nearly non-existant.

Oddly enough it's always been a gaming platform but GS didn't allow PC talk in SW years ago. Anyway.....there is no one PC set up which is why it's silly to compare it to console. It can be better graphically for instance....it can also lag behind depending on the set up. Whereas consoles are as is. If it's said the PS4 has better graphical ability...it's because it's made that way.

So when PC gamers argues....to me it's pointless. For that reason.

#376 Edited by MBirdy88 (8241 posts) -
@LJS9502_basic said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@pyro1245 said:

Why do people keep thinking of a PC as they would a console; as a single entity that is either better or worse than something else. Truth is you can build a pc to be way better OR worse than any of the consoles available. Really it just comes down to the games: few exclusives for the consoles and a shitload for PC.

Exactly....which is why I don't get it's inclusion in SW. It really is a different beast.

Its a gaming platform, thats all that matters. being custimsable is not a reason to exclude, rather an advantage or disadvantage based on income.

I say that.... I feel like buying a PS4 and funding its games, extra controller more expensive than upgrading my computer... by quite a margin.

Then paying £40-50 for games like the Lego Movie which are £20 or less on PC... (minor example I know)... Titanfall on X1 is £40-50 .... I got it on PC for £23.80.

the value/price advantage of consoles is nearly non-existant.

Oddly enough it's always been a gaming platform but GS didn't allow PC talk in SW years ago. Anyway.....there is no one PC set up which is why it's silly to compare it to console. It can be better graphically for instance....it can also lag behind depending on the set up. Whereas consoles are as is. If it's said the PS4 has better graphical ability...it's because it's made that way.

So when PC gamers argues....to me it's pointless. For that reason.

Fair enough, but commonly here the PC Gamers keep relatively up to date. my card is now 3 years old. and still runs Titanfall far better than X1, and BF4 better than PS4 (not much else to compare at the moment) for example... now I could upgrade again and smoke both... but its just no necessary at the moment.

So when people use "PC" here... they are typically like me, someone who has a good PC. They keep it up to date and as their main platform... because... "they were designed that way" by us.

#377 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151102 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

@MBirdy88 said:

Its a gaming platform, thats all that matters. being custimsable is not a reason to exclude, rather an advantage or disadvantage based on income.

I say that.... I feel like buying a PS4 and funding its games, extra controller more expensive than upgrading my computer... by quite a margin.

Then paying £40-50 for games like the Lego Movie which are £20 or less on PC... (minor example I know)... Titanfall on X1 is £40-50 .... I got it on PC for £23.80.

the value/price advantage of consoles is nearly non-existant.

Oddly enough it's always been a gaming platform but GS didn't allow PC talk in SW years ago. Anyway.....there is no one PC set up which is why it's silly to compare it to console. It can be better graphically for instance....it can also lag behind depending on the set up. Whereas consoles are as is. If it's said the PS4 has better graphical ability...it's because it's made that way.

So when PC gamers argues....to me it's pointless. For that reason.

Fair enough, but commonly here the PC Gamers keep relatively up to date. my card is now 3 years old. and still runs Titanfall far better than X1, and BF4 better than PS4 (not much else to compare at the moment) for example... now I could upgrade again and smoke both... but its just no necessary at the moment.

So when people use "PC" here... they are typically like me, someone who has a good PC. They keep it up to date and as their main platform... because... "they were designed that way" by us.

Hey I just built a gaming PC. Nothing ostentatious...but it will play games. If I can find some games to play. Seems to be the hardest to do. Have to pick up a keyboard, mouse, and headset yet....so no rush.

#378 Edited by MiiiiV (481 posts) -

There are still no next gen games that have beaten Crysis with mods, a modded 7 year old pc game! Yes, some next gen games are better than a modded Crysis in some aspects but they lose big in other aspects. There is no next gen game that beats it hand down yet. To even try to compare any next gen game to Crysis 3 from a technical standpoint is ridiculous at this point.

#379 Posted by StormyJoe (5387 posts) -

It's amazing to me that people actually think consoles can produce better graphics than high-end PCs. Usually, mid-level PCs blow consoles out of the water.

#380 Edited by ryangcnx-2 (1231 posts) -

@NFJSupreme said:

@Harisemo said:
@FreedomFreeLife said:

PLAYSTATION 4 VERSION:

PC VERSION:

They look similar

They look similar at first glance it does. At second glance no. Look at the guns. Look at the grass. Look at the water. It would be even more pronounced in motion because PC is 60fps even during massive explosions and action on the screen that PS4 usually slows down on. Definitely looks better on PC. That doesn't say the PS4 is unplayable or anything. It's just not the optimal version.

This is not 100% true and purely depends on what GPU you are running. PC games aren't magically 60 fps, only if you want to shell out the money to buy a high end gpu. Also note, even with a high end gpu, fps can fluctuate too, Bioshock infinite on my GTX 680 would dip into the 40's and didn't run at a perfect 60 fps.

Also those picks, they are different. Different skins on the gun, different gun, ones looking up into the sky while the other is looking into rubble. You can't compare them very well as too much is different. The skin on the PS4 gun is the blocky cammo type while the skin on the PC gun is a normal cammo type, let alone they are 2 different guns with different attatchments. Watching actual videos, they look pretty much identical.

#381 Posted by m3dude1 (1315 posts) -

even on a 780ti highly overclocked fps nosedives when explosions are filling your screen, so that comment is absurd

#382 Posted by Ballroompirate (22930 posts) -

3DS graphics > PC graphics

#383 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12988 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

Oddly enough it's always been a gaming platform but GS didn't allow PC talk in SW years ago.

It's been allowed as long as I've been here.

#384 Posted by Heirren (17101 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit:

Yeah and back then pc gamer fanboys raved about their 800x600 resolution and how consoles could not do rts because they could not reach that feat.

#385 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151102 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

Oddly enough it's always been a gaming platform but GS didn't allow PC talk in SW years ago.

It's been allowed as long as I've been here.

Not true. I used to post in SW.....wasn't allowed. Mods sent them to the PC forum.

#386 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12988 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

Not true. I used to post in SW.....wasn't allowed. Mods sent them to the PC forum.

I signed up to post in SW, and I was as much a PC gamer than as I am now. There was plenty of PC discussion in SW in 2004.

#387 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151102 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

Not true. I used to post in SW.....wasn't allowed. Mods sent them to the PC forum.

I signed up to post in SW, and I was as much a PC gamer than as I am now. There was plenty of PC discussion in SW in 2004.

Dude I posted here. I saw mods chase them out and mod them. In fact when Xbox vs PS2 launched...that's all this forum was....there was NO comparison to PC.

#388 Edited by br0kenrabbit (12988 posts) -

@Heirren said:

@br0kenrabbit:

Yeah and back then pc gamer fanboys raved about their 800x600 resolution and how consoles could not do rts because they could not reach that feat.

Try 1280x1024. I haven't used 800x600 since 1995 or so.

#389 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12988 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

Dude I posted here. I saw mods chase them out and mod them. In fact when Xbox vs PS2 launched...that's all this forum was....there was NO comparison to PC.

Man, I signed up just to post in SW. It was like two years before I ever started posting in OT. If you don't believe me, click here.

#390 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151102 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

@Heirren said:

@br0kenrabbit:

Yeah and back then pc gamer fanboys raved about their 800x600 resolution and how consoles could not do rts because they could not reach that feat.

Try 1280x1024. I haven't used 800x600 since 1995 or so.

That wasn't his point....

#391 Posted by Heirren (17101 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

@Heirren said:

@br0kenrabbit:

Yeah and back then pc gamer fanboys raved about their 800x600 resolution and how consoles could not do rts because they could not reach that feat.

Try 1280x1024. I haven't used 800x600 since 1995 or so.

I figured I may have been exaggerating a little bit. We used a decent NEC{i think] monitor. Pentium 133mhz! It was all right around the time of the arrival of the 3DFX Voodoo. ...I could be wrong but I think 1280x1024 is pushing it.

#392 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12988 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

That wasn't his point....

MY point was no PC gamer would be bragging about 800x600 back then. We were a decade removed from that even then.

#393 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12988 posts) -

@Heirren said:

I figured I may have been exaggerating a little bit. We used a decent NEC{i think] monitor. Pentium 133mhz! It was all right around the time of the arrival of the 3DFX Voodoo. ...I could be wrong but I think 1280x1024 is pushing it.

Voodoo was mid-90's, man. In 2004 GeForce 4s and Radeon 8500s were already a few years old.

#394 Posted by Heirren (17101 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

@Heirren said:

I figured I may have been exaggerating a little bit. We used a decent NEC{i think] monitor. Pentium 133mhz! It was all right around the time of the arrival of the 3DFX Voodoo. ...I could be wrong but I think 1280x1024 is pushing it.

Voodoo was mid-90's, man. In 2004 GeForce 4s and Radeon 8500s were already a few years old.

Yeah, I'm aware. ...and fast forward to today and consoles supposedly still can't do rts. PC gamer "fanboys"(in quotes because they all aren't fanboys) are generally the most tech savvy, yet illogical, of the fanboys.

#395 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12988 posts) -

@Heirren said:

Yeah, I'm aware. ...and fast forward to today and consoles supposedly still can't do rts. PC gamer "fanboys"(in quotes because they all aren't fanboys) are generally the most tech savvy, yet illogical, of the fanboys.

Consoles can't do RTS well because not enough hotkeys. Has nothing to do with what's in the box.

And there's no such thing as a logical fanboy. I clearly remember the "PCs can't even do HD" thread. XD

#396 Edited by Heirren (17101 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

@Heirren said:

Yeah, I'm aware. ...and fast forward to today and consoles supposedly still can't do rts. PC gamer "fanboys"(in quotes because they all aren't fanboys) are generally the most tech savvy, yet illogical, of the fanboys.

Consoles can't do RTS well because not enough hotkeys. Has nothing to do with what's in the box.

And there's no such thing as a logical fanboy. I clearly remember the "PCs can't even do HD" thread. XD

Consoles are perfectly capable of doing rts. It has more to do with market risk than anything else.

There's a consistency with the pc fanboys that doesn't exist with say, the more brand oriented nature of console fanboys. PC fanboys will like their setup because it is cutting edge, but the second that cutting edge is exceeded, it is no longer, apparently, feasible for games--mostly in regards to graphics. Good graphics has more to do with design than technology. There is such a thing as great sprite based graphics, etc. It is what has been done within the technology at hand that really matters--producing a visual that truly stands the test of time. More pixels, more polygons, more etc does not equate to better graphics. If better graphics was all about bleeding edge technology, then there'd be no need for people to focus on visual design and any and everybodys grandmother with the new fastest maching could make a picture with the "best" graphics.

There are 16bit games with better graphics than some current generation games.

#397 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (16154 posts) -

@Heirren said:

@br0kenrabbit said:

@Heirren said:

Yeah, I'm aware. ...and fast forward to today and consoles supposedly still can't do rts. PC gamer "fanboys"(in quotes because they all aren't fanboys) are generally the most tech savvy, yet illogical, of the fanboys.

Consoles can't do RTS well because not enough hotkeys. Has nothing to do with what's in the box.

And there's no such thing as a logical fanboy. I clearly remember the "PCs can't even do HD" thread. XD

There are 16bit games with better graphics than some current generation games.

Like? What are some examples?

#398 Posted by GarGx1 (2701 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

@Heirren said:

Yeah, I'm aware. ...and fast forward to today and consoles supposedly still can't do rts. PC gamer "fanboys"(in quotes because they all aren't fanboys) are generally the most tech savvy, yet illogical, of the fanboys.

Consoles can't do RTS well because not enough hotkeys. Has nothing to do with what's in the box.

And there's no such thing as a logical fanboy. I clearly remember the "PCs can't even do HD" thread. XD

Wasn't that last week? ;)

#399 Edited by br0kenrabbit (12988 posts) -

@Heirren said:

Consoles are perfectly capable of doing rts. It has more to do with market risk than anything else.

There's a consistency with the pc fanboys that doesn't exist with say, the more brand oriented nature of console fanboys. PC fanboys will like their setup because it is cutting edge, but the second that cutting edge is exceeded, it is no longer, apparently, feasible for games--mostly in regards to graphics. Good graphics has more to do with design than technology. There is such a thing as great sprite based graphics, etc. It is what has been done within the technology at hand that really matters--producing a visual that truly stands the test of time. More pixels, more polygons, more etc does not equate to better graphics. If better graphics was all about bleeding edge technology, then there'd be no need for people to focus on visual design and any and everybodys grandmother with the new fastest maching could make a picture with the "best" graphics.

There are 16bit games with better graphics than some current generation games.

RTS games are all about speed, which is why APM (actions per minute) are so stressed. You just can't get that kind of speed without a vast number of hotkeys.

And there's a difference between better graphics and more aesthetically pleasing graphics.

#400 Edited by br0kenrabbit (12988 posts) -

@GarGx1 said:

@br0kenrabbit said:

Consoles can't do RTS well because not enough hotkeys. Has nothing to do with what's in the box.

And there's no such thing as a logical fanboy. I clearly remember the "PCs can't even do HD" thread. XD

Wasn't that last week? ;)

No, it was ~2006, in the early days of the HD twins. That user has long since been banned.

Here's the thread.